[2025] KEHC 10558 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to consider and deduct the 53 days the applicant spent in custody prior to being released on bail, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judge held that the omission was an error warranting revision of the sentence. Consequently, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 10558 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gerald Murungi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E002 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- SM Githinji
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Credit for Time Served, Revision Jurisdiction, Grievous Harm, Custodial Sentences
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gerald Murungi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in custody by the applicant prior to release on bail should be deducted from the sentence imposed as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider and deduct the pre-sentence custodial period from the applicant's sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to consider and deduct the 53 days the applicant spent in custody prior to being released on bail, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judge held that the omission was an error warranting revision of the sentence. Consequently, the applicant's 10-year imprisonment sentence was ordered to be reduced by 53 days, with the prison authorities directed to effect this adjustment. The court reaffirmed the mandatory requirement for trial courts to account for pre-sentence custodial periods in sentencing, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and upholding the applicant's rights.
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The applicant's sentence of 10 years imprisonment is reduced by 53 days to account for the period spent in custody prior to release on bail.
- Prison authorities to effect the deduction of 53 days from the applicant's sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Murungi v Republic (Criminal Revision E002 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 10558 (KLR) (17 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 10558 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Revision E002 of 2025
SM Githinji, J
July 17, 2025
Between
Gerald Murungi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Gerald Murungi, the applicant herein, was charged together with another namely Job Mwika with an offence of grievous harm, contrary to Section 234 of the penal code.
2. The particulars of the offence being that on the 30th day of June 2017 at Anjau Sub-location, Luciuti Location, Igembe North Sub-County within Meru County, they jointly and unlawfully did grievous harm to Abed Muthoni.
3. After the trial, the court found them guilty of the offence and were sentenced to serve each 10 years imprisonment. The applicant did not prefer an appeal to the High Court but filed the current application for revision of the sentence, under sections 362 and 364 of the C.P.C.
4. The Notice of Motion dated 3rd January, 2025 shows that his prayer is for the period spent in custody while undergoing trial to be considered and deducted from the meted sentence of 10 years Imprisonment, as provided for under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. The Respondent opposed the Application on the grounds that the sentence meted against the applicant is legal, proper and the trial court did not act on wrong principle or omitted relevant factor or took into account irrelevant factors in sentencing the applicant.
6. Under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, every sentence is deemed to start from the day it’s pronounced unless the accused was in custody before sentencing. A cursory glance at the proceedings in this case shows the applicant was arrested on 28/8/2017. On 19/10/2017, one Robert Kimathi Murungi paid on his behalf cash bail of 50,000/= and he was thus released. He was not therefore throughout in custody during the trial. My calculation from 28/8/2017 to 19/10/2017 shows he was in custody for only 53 days.
7. The trial Magistrate while sentencing him on 20th October 2024 expressed:-“I have considered Mitigation statement by the 1st accused. He is a first offender. However, the injury inflicted on the complainant are severe and life threatening. In addition, the accused had to be arrested after evading sentencing and he is before the court under arrest. He is certainly not remorseful on this horrendous attack on the complainant. He is hereby sentenced to serve imprisonment for 10 (Ten) years.”
8. From the foregoing its apparent that the 53 days the applicant had spent in custody before he was released on bond were not considered and arithmetically deducted from the meted sentence. To the said extent, I find the application merited. The 10 years imprisonment meted against the applicant is lessened by 53 days. Prison Authorities under which he is serving to effect the finding.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 17TH JULY, 2025. S.M. GITHINJIJUDGE.Appearances:-Parties absent.They be notified.